The SJC and Bill Galvin Usher in 4th of July Week with a Blow to Voting Rights

Although Massachusetts’s constitution–the oldest written constitution in continuous effect — has an affirmative right to vote, we have often lagged behind other states when it comes to voting rights. Indeed, we are the only state in all of New England without some form of Election Day registration.

Fun fact: New Hampshire has had it for almost as long as Bill Galvin has been our Secretary of State here in MA (1996 vs. 1995). States like Minnesota and Wisconsin had it decades before. When we screamed about Scott Walker’s efforts to increase obstacles to voting, Wisconsin’s laws were still more liberal than ours in many ways. In other words, we can do a lot better.

After the 2016 election, the ACLU, on behalf of MassVote and the Chelsea Collaborative, sought to change that and filed suit against the Commonwealth, arguing that our twenty-day registration cutoff is unconstitutional by way of the state constitution and its affirmative right to vote.

Last summer, the Suffolk Superior Court ruled in the ACLU’s favor, asserting that the deadline was arbitrarily chosen and unnecessarily prevented thousands of citizens from exercising their constitutional rights:

“The court concludes that the Commonwealth has shown no real reason, grounded in data, facts or expert opinion, why election officials need to close registration almost 3 weeks before the election to do their job,” Associate Justice Douglas H. Wilkins wrote in his ruling. “Instead, the plaintiffs have shown that there is no compelling reason for a 20-day deadline that deprives individuals of their right to vote.”

Rather than allowing the ruling to stand, Secretary Bill Galvin chose to appeal it, raising the spectre of “voter fraud.” (As I like to joke, it’s difficult enough to get people to vote once.)

It is amusing for me to see Galvin present himself as a champion of Election Day Registration now. Last summer, he was talking about voter fraud. This January, he was championing Election Day Registration. Primary challenges work wonders! (h/t Josh Zakim)

But how credible is Galvin’s newfound embrace of EDR?

Over the course of 2013 and 2014, the Legislature worked on an election modernization bill that helped bring our elections partly into the twenty-first century, with things like early voting and pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Senate’s bill contained EDR. The House’s did not. As often happens, the House won.

His EDR bill is, of course, weaker than that filed by Rep. Liz Malia and Sen. Cindy Creem. He supports EDR–just not during the early voting period (a position with no sound basis).

But knowing fully well the intransigence of the House (imagine if more people voted! Some of them might get primary challenges! We’d lose our status as one of the least competitive states!), he filed his own bill.

Is he working the building to get it passed in the final crunch period? Obviously not. His support reminds me of when oil companies feign support of carbon pricing to pretend to care about climate change while knowing fully well the endorsed policy will not get passed.

Had he wanted to see ER happen, the easiest thing to do would have been to drop his appeal. If the Suffolk Superior ruling were to stand, the Legislature would have had to take action to fix the unconstitutionality of the registration cutoff. Galvin could have pushed his friends in the House (indeed, his neighboring representative is quite close to the Speaker) to pass Election Day Registration as a solution. He’d have real leverage, afforded by the courts! Then to the Senate. And (Baker should not be an obstacle because we have massive Democratic supermajorities if only they’d use them) we’d have Election Day Registration.

But instead, he appealed. I know this may sound complicated: but if you want something to happen, you don’t try to block it in court.

This lays out piece by piece why Bill Galvin is an obstacle and not an ally to reform. For far too long this proudly conservative Democrat was insulated from credible opposition. Gadflys like Jill Stein or Republicans with even more regressive approaches to voting rights were the only alternatives.

Now he can be replaced by a credible progressive Democrat committed to the reforms and innovations this office desperately needs. We need an activist Secretary of State, committed to fighting for ordinary consumers and votere, not a champion of the status quo. Zakim has been endorsed by former statewide officer Steve Grossman and Congressman Seth Moulton who have worked with Galvin and know what an obstacle to progress he is. Zakim is my city councilor and has been a transparent and accessible official. I cannot say the same for Galvin or his office. It is sorely time for a change.

I do think Galvin is showing signs of the classic motivation by being challenged. I favor same-day registration on the merits, but do not see it as a fundamental right that the courts should have forced.

First, congratulations to assistant solicitor David Kravitz for the SJC win!

Second, in general, I think state officials should defend the constitutionality of state statutes in court when they are challenged, whether or not they personally support the statutes in question. I would be more critical of a Secretary who refused to defend the constitutionality of the statute.

Little-known fact about the powers of our state Attorney General (from a 1977 SJC opinion):

The Attorney General has complete responsibility for all the state’s legal business, including the authority, when representing State officers, “to decide matters of legal policy which would normally be reserved to the client in an ordinary attorney-client relationship” and “the authority to chart a course of legal action opposed by the administrative officers [s]he represents.”

The decision to appeal the Superior Court decision in this case, therefore, was not Secretary Galvin’s alone.

“The decision to appeal the Superior Court decision in this case, therefore, was not Secretary Galvin’s alone..”
To which the proper response is “a plague on both their houses.” At the very, very, least, Galvin could have shown some leadership on this issue if he really is in favor of same day registration.
As for Healey, not only did our state AG get a Muzzle Award from Dan Kennedy this year for her activities keeping the commonwealth from being more transparent, but I’m waiting for someone to realize that the drug testing scandals that falsely convicted so many people must have had disastrous consequences for the families involved.
How many families were broken up? How many children taken away from their parents? How many families have been further ruined by the stonewalling and foot dragging coming out of the AG’s office in correcting this?
Maybe someone will write a Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Families and Children, as well as the AG to get the actual numbers. But considering who the current Secretary of State is and who is the current Attorney General , I;m not confident that the FOIA request will be handled properly.

More mud from the progressive goodie goodie wing of the party. Galvin initially opposes a law suit and is ultimately proven correct by the SJC, but somehow that makes him wrong? Then it is misrepresented that Galvin choose to appeal, but we find out from Hester that it is the AG that makes the decisions as to whether to appeal or not. (And while he was acting in his capacity of his position, the irony of having the founder of BlueMassGroup defending this appeal in court is rich indeed.)

Another half-truth in this post is the comparing of NH having same day registration, for almost as long as Galvin has been Sec of State. The half-truth not mentioned is that NH allows same day registration as part of a DOJ settlement decree. i.e. their voting right laws were so horrible the DOJ made them reform it. MA may have problems under Galvin, but nothing close to the problems NH had. (And NH requires voter ID…)

This level of half-truth extends to face to face pitch from a Zakim staff person, who, in quickly rattling off bad things that happen under Galvin–and presumably his fault–was the fact that in the last census Galvin oversaw, we lost a Congressional seat. The (false) implication was clear, we lost a congressional seat because of Galvin (and the campaign staffer completely retreated when pressed on that point.)

I ge the “young blood” pitch and am generally sympathetic about it. But the tactics of the Zakim campaign and their supporters on BlueMassGroup and speaking to DTCs are horrid. Maybe not at a Carl Rive or Steve Bannon level, but certainly not even close to the ideals for which a bridge is named for.